the election, campaign, democrats talked about taxing the rich, make the rich pay more, they played that game of class warfare, no people are finding without, that is not -- only going to take care of a small sliver of it, now, they are using terms like revenue, they don't top tell the little -- don't want to tell the little by they will be raising taxes. lou: is that true. >> actually, when it comes to debt sealing it is a nonnegotiate item. >> so step lated, this is -- stipulated, this is crazy, what is hoyer talking about in. >> i can't peak to that issue. lou: come on, there has never been an issue youk could not talk about. >> we have to focus on entitlement reform. lou: you are not? robert thank you, and sherri,

and curtis thank you. we appreciate it that is it for us, tonight we appreciate you being with us, hope you will join us, here tomorrow, it will be outstanding, i guarantee it, good night from new york. neil: sun of a -- we dodge the cliff, and the agency refuses to cut us a break, i am neil cavuto, i hate to say i told you so, fitch investors say that we're ripe for a cut even after survivorring a cliff, a possible downgrade of our debt is on. so much for clumsy patches, we don't need no stinkin patches we need a real deal that. fitch's managers director put it the pressure on u.s. rating if anything is increasing, fitch already has a negative outlook

for u.s., only remaining option would to be downgrade the u.s., much hinges on how washington handles this debt ceiling next. but not all, fitch said that problem is we never seem to get around to deals with the problem behind that mess. quoting fitch a riley, fundamental credit strengths are eroded by large studily declining structure budget deficit, and high and rising public debt. what fitch is not saying, but almost screaming is, the washington sons of fitches are doing not about it, they screamed it. after the cliff, get ready for the crash. i'm not surprised we could still be cut. i'm surprised that fitch has not already done so, john campbell said that triple a rated countries do not we behave this way. i'm surprised it has not already happened. what do you think?

>> i know, i just, you know there isal this talk if we get into a big fight over trying to reduce entitlements and making a long-term solution to this, that fitch or some rating agencies may cut our credit rating at this point. if that is what they are doing, they have it backwards. what they should do is they should look at reducing our credit rating, if we don't -- if we don't make some significant change in long temp problem, otherwise we'll surpass italy, and greece and spain and japan. that is what hey should be talking about. not just about this fight we're going to have over the fiscal cliff. of this going to to look like. neil: you know what worries me. is that we build a great dial of expectation on the process, it is the underlying spending that leads to the disrupted process

that is the problem. now i'm worried that that will not be addressed for fear of not ticking off the fitches and moody's and s&ps, you guys will keep cobbling in halfaseing in . >> that is right, not just from fitch but wall street, a message, don't rock the boat, don't do anything that might cause disruption, don't actually try to fiction the whole problem. because, if you do, that next quarter's earnings might be reduced, there might be a problem. forget next quarter or next 30 days i'm worried about next 30 years. >> are you willing to say, you would be willing to risk not raising debt ceiling, producing a partial government shut down, to make that point? >> absolutely. i would much rather bring on a controlled problem, right now

that perhaps could lead to us a solution for the greater problem. if we don't do this, neil,t and and i think you know, we'll have a debt collapse at some point in the future, at a time not of our chosing, en controlled and uncontrol able and we will not be able to fix it. in order to convince this president we need to reduce entitlement spending we have to go over the new cliff, if you will, for partial government shut down, i'll take that because we will prevent a bigger less controllable problem later. neil: will you be willing to take the blame, however unfairly it might be as producing the government shut down it so republicans that we have this financial anarchy? >> i hope what people would recognize, and people would realize, is that we cannot continue with trillion dollar

deficits, period. the country will go in to a debt collapse. we will have problem like greece, like spain, like japan. this is not congestionture, we can see other country that had this happen, we know there are different consequences but they are all bad. we know that will happen. what we're frying to do is pre-- trying to do is prevent, that think long-term and try to prevent it, that is what i hope people will understand. >> all right, congressman thank you very much. >> okay, neil thank you. neil: well you know, regular people on this show are not likely shocked. i am telling you markets and much of the world will be when this happens, then what. to market watchers. david asman and teen athen what? >> look, i was listening to everything that and you congressman were saying and i

just want to make a point, government spending is at problem here, but not just a problem because if some day we default on our debt it would create a market panic but this is a problem is represents a huge departure from all american idea that americans should be ale to enjoy the fruits of their own labors, so, i have been asking myself as democrats don't seem to think it is that big of a deal to raise the debt ceiling what they think the debt ceiling represents, and it represents all this spending that i think that democrats are comfortable with, they believe that government bureaucrats can spent their money better than tax payers can spend their own hart earned dollars, i disagree with. neil: that brings you to brinkmanship games, the fact that we keep playing the same game. we never address the underlying spending. >> well, and that is why what john campbell just said did show a lot of little bit rally courage to say -- political courage to say public he is willing to shut down the

government to force the president's hand, that is something that very few republicans are willing to do. i heard my liberal friend. neil: it will never come to that. >> i don't think if will, i think they will make a deal. john campbell, is a stan out guy, and for him to say that we have do it now, because, the longer we put it off, the harder it will become when we come face-to-face with a fiscal realty of fact we borrow 40-cents on every dollar we spend. that is huge amount of borrowing, right new it is not killing us because interest rates are so low but when they tick up it will kill us. neil: a lot of thing nas have been said about this approaching cliff whatever you top use is that we'll default, we will default we only default if we stop paying note holders and creditors payments and we're getting a lot of money in every month.

>> we'll wo we'll -- have to den some obligation, whether it is social security or veterans or men and women overseas or contractors, or debt holders we'll have to default on some obligations, once the government defaults on some legal obligations where does it end. neil: have you enough to pay with the money, i want to be clear, just paying those note holder, bond holders, social security others of government, entitlements, have you that and enough money for a variety of other measures, without risks default, so -- >> no, no. because i think that your math is not right, there is not enough revenue coming in to cover all obligation of government. lou:o. neil: not all of the government, i am talking about program you just listed. rest would not be --

>> you have to default on some obligation to people who are owed money, debt sealing iing dt about future spending. neil: what was is 7 years ago when every democrat, including barack obama -- debt ceiling. >> can i finish this one point. at end of day raising debt ceiling is about paying bills that have been incurred. neil: i know that, what were democrats thinking 7 year ago when they voted gain it they were just addressing. >> it was political theater then and now, but now. neil: did you see that then? >> i was in college or grad school. you should have had me on. >> barack obama -- hold on, barack obama was saying it back then, there is so much santa

money from the white house, national debt was 10 trillion when he came in, it is 16 trillion, he has not thinked for his talk about corporate responsibility and millionaires and billionaires paying their fair share that last tax bill as more corporate welfare to billionaire friends of barack obama than any pork bill we've seen so far. >> obama will not last too long when they see this hypocrisy. >> i cannot believe we're calling it responsible to consider defaulting on some of our obligation today so maybe at

some point in the future there will not be a debt collapse. you say we should default today so there will not be a default in the future. neil: he didn't say default, i want to get away from idea we go to financial armageddon here. having said that. tina, i want to take michael at his word he would be just as outraged, looking at what democrats pulled then versus now, let's be fair, he is right to say a pox on both party houses. here is where we are, in present, here is what we're about to do, look at another debt increase, without addressing the underlying problem that keep bringing us, to this moment. what do we did about that? >> two thoughts, in every you said, one is that president last requested a debt ceiling increase just a year and a half

ago $2.1 trillion, we heard all argument that michael just made, paying the bills, now we have increased it again. i want to reiterate, what neil just said, that we could afford to pay all of the core obligations of government, social security, -- >> michael, let her finish. >> neil: one at a time. >> we incurred so many obligations, that we're having to raise the debt ceiling, to meet them, i would argue that is a sign that government has grown too big, and over extending itself, and trying to do too much. neil: michael to that point. and same -- what do you think? >> i'm sorry, a lot of talking points in there. which point? >> well you could repeat any of your talking points, i'm asking

you to point we keep doing this same thing, expecting a different result? >> well, look, a lot of what has us here is tax cuts, and i know you don'tment to hearment want t taxes are low. neil: just keep raising them? >> we need a combination, a planned approach -- neil: like a 40 to 1 tax hike to spending cut deal. >> are you kidding? we've done $1.8 trillion of spending cuts. >> woe okay woe, wait, where are these spending cuts, they are always in the future, all in the future. actual spending we spending 25 pierc25%more now. >> you have to cut it in the future. neil: we have spend a hell of a lot of time talking over one another that always helps me, when we come back, get the flu shot or another job?

can a boss do that. several bosses, who did that. and there is nothing, nothing that the workers could do about it. nothing. look at jimmy carter, i always knew he was watching me, now i have the proof. [ male announcer ] at scottrade, you won't just find us online, you'll also find us in person, with dedicated support teams at over 500 branches nationwide. so when you call or visit, you can ask for a name you know. because personal service starts with a real person. [ rodger ] at scottrade, seven dollar trades are just the start. our support teams are nearby, ready to help. it's no wonder so many investors are saying... [ all ] i'm with scottrade.

♪ ♪ [ male announcer ] you don't have to be a golf pro to walk like one. ♪ when you walk 10,000 steps a day, it's the same as walking a professional golf course. humana. health and well-being partner of the pga tour.

neil: so, did you get your flu shot? if you are a while care worker, -- if you are a health care worker, you better have, those who are not, are shown the door. opponents of fires said it is unreasonable for any company to spread the strong arming. so bridge in the lawyers. with me now. all right, your thoughts. >> well, it is legal. as a general rule. neil: to force people to get the

shots? >> most employment is as will, i'm sure my colleague will tell you, you could be fired at any point for any reason, if there is a dress code policy, it is business attire, if you come in every day in jeans, you could be fired for that even if you say this is freedom of expression, you can find another job to ex press yourself, but this job, it is business attire. there are exception tot to the , they will make exceptions for medical reasons and religious reasons. this is the same case under. underment at the, there are guidelines that employers are required of you, you have to abide by them or find another job. neil: normally, i don't like anybody forcing me to do anything. but if i want a health care

professional, it may be in my best interest and my patients to have that shot. >> potentially, they are forcing you to intro dos introduce a fon substance into your body, this is a change in your terms of employment with no correction, if you are under a collective bargains agreement, you lose your rights and there is 60% of cas fo%efficacy for the flu shoy do not stop all strains of the flu. we're not even sure if this is the appropriate vaccination for this flu. this seems arbitrary, i agree, you should be wealthy and wash your hands, and healthy, but in order to mandate this, seems preposterous. >> it seems common sense to me, if you are working in a

hospital, and right now there is an epidemic of the flu viewers thavirusthis is prevent able, is common sense. >> how is it preventible. neil: kelly to new a second, but i can see where this leads, let's say you work at a i don't know a tattoo parlor and everyone should have one, they could go on and on. >> this is a prevailing interest in hospitals -- neil: for now. >> to keep them safe, and secure and healthy. neil: you are not worried about the slippery slope thing. >> i don't believe in the slippery slope. neil: really? i slip all the time. >> you can be fired.

people have a right to work, but in this case, like you said, a lot of people don't want to be bossed around, this should be a individual decision, this is a slippery slope, sunnily if you nily if suddenly if you have to eat a certain type of food or a bmi to work here, we have already talked about smokers on the show, this is a step further, not only do you have to wash your hands but you have to inject a foreign body in your blood stream. neil: after a while, my friend began looking like me who worked in a fitness gym, they fired him, now he is a broker, but bottom line he got too big for the job, and he did not represent himself well as a fitness trainer if he ended up looking like buddha they canned his hiney. >> i do agree with you, i have said it before, i think image

standards are important for a lot of companies however -- neil: can you ep force them? you enforce them. >> yes. >> show me correlation between people refusing to get it, if those individuals are sick and spreading the flu, you can't do that. neil: yeah, what she said. don't add to it. >> think about liability, if you have patients who are getting sick because people who work at hospitals have the flu, and they are allowed to work there with the flu-like symptoms, they are being proactive. neil: all right, ladies thank you very much. if thing so peach we this economy, -- peachy with this economy, why are millions of

americans bursting their piggy banks just to get by?

neil: 401(k) not okay, people are so tapped out, one in four are tapping in just to meet their basic expenses, that is up just in last 4 years. you know don, you were warning about this. even in go-go period. to tap what are supposed to be the funds for retirement. like a cash register. now, understand abily more so. why do our about it? >> when they started this, they were replacing a pension with a 401(k). and they assumed two things, first money would go in and stay there and second it would be run properly, neither one happened.

it has na not been run properly, people have been taking the money out, estimates vary 80% of what supposed to be there. in problem is that people who are most likely to take it out are those at lower income level who will need the money when they retire more. neil: and they pay penalties and early withdrawel. the only argument for it, is what is worse, i'm borrowing for myself, and paying myself back? >> you can't pay yourself back, you can take it out but you can't put it back in. in a tax deferred way it turns up later in life. >> say a loan. >> that is fine, maybe if you can pay it back. but not ideal, it defeats the system, that is you want money compounding, unincome berred

like a mention, this money was conceived of no of not on touchl you retire, except for emergencies, the biggest thing people will have to work longer, they will could od crowd odd joe young, you have a whole body of people who cannot afford to retire, hanging on their jobs and leaving out jobs for a lot of young people, it is a very bad combination. neil: do you think this have a reflect on lack of faith in the markets, if marketing were doubling and tripling, people would be less inclined to tap their money it is growing like a fire? >> it is right, and people got used to it. money compounded regularly, but now it is harder to make money. much harder to keep you money. and i go back to say we have a nation of pension fund managers. neil: yeah. a nation of spenders.

>> and spenders. they are good at spending. >> the government is a great inspiration. you have to e educate, but the rift is you have to make it harder for people to get money out. yes you may need it. but you would not have it but for this program, it has to be there when you are 65. for 20% of americans that is not going to be there time bomb. neil: are you surprised that markets are doing as well as they are in faces, cliffs that we get by, debt ceilings that were facing on and on? >> i'm a great believer in the market, but market more confident of what is goin goingo happen than i am, this fiscal cliff, we did it once before, first turns off, then it discourages americas, and it impacts world we look foolish.

it looks like we don't know the core issue that we have. ththe ability of this country co to keep its word. neil: she found her sugar daddy when she married hef, now thousands of college students are looking for their own. ♪ [ male announcer ] how do you make 70,000 trades a second... ♪ reach one customer at a time? ♪ or help doctors turn billions of bytes of shared information... ♪ into a fifth anniversa of remission?

♪ whatever your business challenge, dell has the technology and services to help you solve it. whatever your business challenge, and you wouldn't have it any other way.e. but your erectile dyunction - you know, that could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess with cialis. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, seek immediate medical help for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision, or if you have any allergic reactions such as rash, hives, swelling of the lips, tongue or throat, or difficulty breathing or swallowing, stop taking cialis and get medical help right away.

ask your doctor about cialis for daily use and a 30-tablet free trial.

♪ ♪ [laughter] neil: anyway, went back to school. and they thought that they found a sugar daddy. now students at colleges everywhere are looking for the real thing. thousands of them are clicking on a site that matches up rich older guys with girls looking for a rich older guys.

this site calls this a mutually beneficial arrangement. that has sugar mommy's for guys looking for, i guess, some sugar. not cheap. financial health surprise and jetted back on how this is a sign of the times and not a good one. to you first. >> i think this is part of our entitlement culture. what can you do for me. at a want to be responsible for these costs, deal with all of the debt for years to come for investing in myself essentially. let me see how someone else can pay me for this so that at all have to incur all those burdens. the end of the day you have the personal satisfaction being allowed to say at did this myself. as craze for feminism. i'm so horrified that women are doing this and don't have the self-respect to stand up for themselves and say, i can do it

on my own and don't need you, and i think it is a poor reflection of where we're headed as a society. >> well, i ask myself the question, who pays for sex and a high supply sexual economy where we are living right now when the price has gone from the three dates to the price of all well worded text. well, guys that literally what absolutely no hassle, tend to be emotionally avoided and researchers are starting to suggest as much as 40 percent of our country are afraid of emotional intimacy. neil: you're blaming the guys for this that they're willing to go ahead and be abused and used? >> was interesting is that when on the site. a lot of these guys are not older, they're just in their 30's. the women are very young, 18, some 18 in 19 years old or say they are. that was the disturbing piece for me. >> i'm not willing to blame the guys. i was in 8919 year-old once and

knew that i had to work really hard. i went to columbia university, over 40,000 per year. i had to work to earn a scholarship because i knew my middle-class parents would not be able to pay the tuition. neil: builds a lot of folks are faced with now. >> with these are adult women. 1920 is an adult female. you have to be able to hold accountable. because they can stay on their parents' insurance does not mean their toddlers. neil: this does not mean they're all getting sex. >> something is sweetening the pot. >> oh, please. neil: just play along. i don't want to do anything to make my sex look like the pigs that we are. now we have this phenomenon, more routine and we think. this site is doing gangbusters. so what does that say about us in general? you are saying very little. >> i am saying we're becoming more emotionally void and afraid of real connections that involve

the f-word feeling and i think that a lot of these young women certainly have a right, and let's not mince words year. this is prostitution. a legalized form of prostitution . they certainly have a right to my dislike a young man with strong muscles as a right to work construction. the question is, will they have -- will they have healthy relationships in there future if this is how the begin. the answer is, no. every relationship we have trains ourselves with the relationships we have in the future. it is what it is. legalized prostitution on the internet, and these girls don't seem to be a shame that all because the double standard has completely been erased. but only in the minds of women. these girls don't get that. neil: we noticed in the examples of the guys, that is a lot less. >> i have been a teacher, taught

at the college level. i think this is a trend that would be much more unlikely to see for women, and -- neil: you are the more conniving. [laughter] >> i would not say at, but i think feminism has bred dependency. it was intended to do the opposite, but now it is something that pushes women toward government dependence and puts this idea of entitlement in their minds. neil: there are going past the government and to some guy. >> it is a sign of what morality means today and what guides people's moral compasses, and it is in my opinion, not great. neil: bless about women and it does about man. >> i think it says a lot about men and women. that is that our sexual opportunity has arisen in culture, sexual restraint has gone down. and i think there are cougar when your sparling young men. one of the reason why men are not so apt to get married is because there would rather hook up with a sugar mama.

all of this bodes to what is happening with our morals. at the end of the day it hurts healthy families and young people who want to have healthy families that have trouble having healthy relationships in a hook-up culture. neil: sadly it is. >> and at the end of the day her as the personal responsibility upon which the country was founded. he take that out of the equation we are in trouble. neil: don't even get me started on responsibility. we will just call them in your book facebook. it looks like they could be searching for clues. ♪

♪ neil: a lot of your folks. nearly one-and-a-half million fewer folks to be exact. that is how many facebook users stopped using facebook class bond or at least took a break from their bodies last month.

the stock tanking after mark zuckerberg announced a search tool to help users leverage off the facebook community. this is one potential problem. lots of users are worried about their privacy. one analyst is worried this is over hyped. something happened to tape. what was it? >> well, first of all, they made an announcement. most of the wall street was thinking that he was going to show the search engine, and basically, what they did was say, we are going to a aggregated data that you have and we're going to have this. a little bit underwhelming. it was not some fancy search engine. so sort of water down. the problem is that remember a dozen years ago when we talked about western -- whisper numbers. already in the stock we only have an expectation that they will have 40 percent growth in there mobile ad space, that is when you get on your iphone.

the ads. neil: but something where to be reassessed for some reason. out the gate with the 30 to almost $40 price, it tumbles. and then we found a happy medium. all right. we can see it maybe it 30 or whenever. then it sank again. what is the real thing here? because now with the news that so many turned off for use the service less combined with the company now wanting to leverage off at grand, what is really happening here? is the brand in trouble? >> well, i don't think it is in trouble, but years of the problem is. when you already have a saturated market and people getting tired and burned out, just like they did on my space, now you add this other element meaning you have to make money. the murdoch's problem with his social network. people will be less likely to start joining the network. and i have not been on my facebook for weeks and weeks, and it will start cannibalizing. they'd be more subscribers to

get more and growth, and if they do that, in fact, the opposite will happen. people get burned out and get turned off. neil: a you saying this is running out of oxygen? >> i can tell you that if you're going to try to attract new users to make the stock price go up for drug death to do that in conjunction with that growth. right now there is a concern on wall street's that there underwhelmed by the news today. neil: the news, if you have a privacy issue, leverage off the brand in all parts, fellow users and anything at links up to facebook does not that invite problems in and of itself? >> that is the whole reason why wall street was disappointed

because that is not what they really do. it is underwhelming because they really do, people that you already know. neil: but really, really like? >> exactly. facebook is trying to address your concerns about privacy, but in doing so, if you are a stock investor you have missed out because facebook trying to, you know, they are trying to do their evil right now, but they're not getting the parts that wall street wants short-term. my clients on facebook and if they ask me, clients that retire. you don't build a retirement portfolio buying facebook stock. to think that this is one of those cases where facebook is doing what i think that you would want to see which is they're concerned about people's privacy. however, once they do this, because they're concerned about the privacy issues that we're talking about the most trees says, we are not getting the bang for our buck so we will sell it off, and that is what happened. neil: you are one of the few in your industry make perfect

sense. that is scary get. very good. thank you very much. maybe it's possible. you know, it's not enough for unions to make their company life hell. now, now they must make our lives hell as well. big labor prefers just being a big pain. ♪

♪ neil: all right. unions gone wild. let's try this city. about 160,000. by the way, 60,000 kids are disabled. that follows the san francisco nurses' strike, the west coast dock workers strike, and, of course, the death of 20. many say that unions made hostess go bust, so seriously,

david asman says big labor is alienating an angry and more people by the date. explain. >> you really only care about twinkies. the fact is that this could get ugly. the last school bus strike there was a new york was 1979 and that lasted three months. three months of disabled kids not being able to get to school. if they do they will be given passes and then the tax money which could cost hundreds of millions of dollars more for a strapped city. so taxpayers have lost all patients with their public-sector unions on this particular issue. neil: we see a lot more of these issues. unions, it's going to be annoying to the general public. that is part of the strategy, but is this too much so? >> when i worked for the heritage foundation and cover the wisconsin issue of remember this exact same thought. if you really care what your job

of educating children or busing and to school, wire you striking? on the surface the bus drivers concern is very relatable. who would love the employee protection provisions that in sure you have a job, but on some level they're saying that these provisions won't cost the city more. and so my thought is you can only be concerned about losing your job if you're not doing your job well our he thinks someone else is willing to do your job well which means either you're not doing your job well or will cost the city more. the argument is does not hold up neil: your pr pointed you about how your battle with higher wages is resonating with the general public. as in this kind of stuff for you? >> it is always unfortunate when these issues come to us. but it is important to put this in context. the last year for which we have full-year data, there were about 120 strikes to rate -- i'm sorry, 19 major works bracket --

stoppages. sixty years ago there were 270 per year. so are these high-profile strikes, and it is complicated, but we are seeing a lot fewer of these kind of work stoppages than we had in the past, so there is a little bit of extra height. neil: also seeing a lot fewer union members. there were a lot more strikes when there were a lot more unions which have a lot more power than they did with the exception of the party must have a lot of power, they have lost tremendous power because of incidents. oh, by the way, this particular provision -- man finish, please, this particular provision was ruled illegal by a court, a new york state court back in 2011. it has already been through the courts, this provision of their striking over. >> it is definitely true that there are many fewer union members than there were 60 years ago, and it is also not a coincidence that middle-class wages have stagnated at the same time. you see. depends on which time.

neil: michael, no, that is not true. at eight. neil: during the obama administration, yes, but if you take a longer time frame. neil: guys, i want to pursue a little bit to this topic. the issue now is whether the message and the way the u.n. strike is losing them even more public support. what do you think? >> there is really no controversy there. i think we're all in agreement that it is not a pr strategy to leave children without a way to school, especially when you pointed out 50,000 of them are disabled. neil: look at around and there is no way they can win if they want to push for higher wages they have to leave their job, and if that is the case and produces this, they are in a no-1 situation. >> i agree. neil: well, i just we stand. >> i agree. neil: that is a scary moment. >> that is when you point of the problem with the government employees union in the first place which is just that the taxpayers don't have a seat at

the table, so the city has a vested interest in keeping costs low because they're using taxpayer dollars to pay public employees, and public employees have a vested interest in keeping their wages side, so there again at eight. neil: that union losing their influence, not in the public sector side. they're still very strong. >> probably a better judge than i. isn't it true that public-sector unionization has gone up at the same time the private sector unionization has gone down? >> has actually been pretty steady. at eight. >> is in that 30 percent of public workers are unionized. >> that is about right. that is about right. but that is actually right. yes. [laughter] the numbers are right. neil: really bothered michael to say that. >> i love it when we use actual numbers that it actually was my heart. neil: you warm our heart.

i guess lambasting is coming in the future i don't care whether you are union or not, workers leave or go out and strike and just make a purchase statement about a given, you know, offense . wind it disrupts the daily public discourse to say nothing of just a public function, then i think you have broached an area that is risky, and i worry about the long-term gains of that type of strategy. >> can i answer that? neil: sure. why not. passed on your feet. >> i got it. i meant. look, it is tough. no question about it, but at the end of the day the workers do have a right and they do need to have some leverage to bargain with their management, whether private or public sector. neil: but can you risk over using it. >> and their is a reason why we have seen fewer strikes which sued suggest that when it comes to a strike their is a serious issue that needs to be addressed i don't know a lot about this particular issue, but the fact that we have some many fewer

means that we really don't see them unless it is a serious issue that should be resolved. neil: teaneck, quick point. >> my thought is an old-fashioned one, you take pride in doing your work well. if you care about the job you are trying to project, would you do it and try to come to an agreement? neil: we just discovered. now, normally you're kidding. but we are here out of the love -- what are we here for? >> we will let the free *. neil: we let the free ties. >> free *? neil: i wanted thank you all very much. you are great bunch. meanwhile, here is all the proof that you need that spending in washington is out of control. we are paying for bill clinton to use his remote-control to get cinemax. for life. yes. it's true. ♪ [ male announcer ] now many humana medicare plans

come with a little extra help in the kitchen. in a first of its kind partnership with walmart, humana medicare plans now include 5% savings on great for you healthier foods at walmart! it's part of the vitality healthyfood program... and one more way humana medicare can help you choose what's good for your health and your wallet. so you can spend a little less money... and spend a little more time sharing what you know with the people who matter most. humana. ♪

neil: so, bill clinton gets cinemax for free on us.

just part of the slew of goodies that former presidents are putting on our tab. not the only ones, and he's not the only tab. jimmy carter did satellite tv at taxpayer expense. but the dish network scale package was does not include cinemax. i bet you, knowing jimmy, he does watch eat as p.m. but let's just say with or without cinemax former presidents are pushing these pennies to the max. friesen -- free subscriptions, and ample budget for staff and office operations, even if they don't. let's just say bill clinton is not the only ex-president taking advantage of the nearly $4 million we go out to this most exclusive club. his successors received almost one-and-a-half which is bad. $834,000. jimmy carter himself, a little bit more than half a million. another $14,000 goes to these